Search (29 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0013313505 = product of:
  0.007322428 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 5239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=5239,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5239, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5239)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 5239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=5239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5239)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

In "Part 4. Cognitive Styles in Information Seeking,'' where Ford is the primary author, the results of the application of the Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis and the Pask's holist/serialist portion of the Ford's Study Process Questionnaire to the 111 U.K. participants. were correlated using Spearman's coefficient with reports of focused thinking, degree of change in the intermediary's perception of the problem and personal knowledge, problem stage, degree of differentiating activity, change in problem perception, engagement in exploring activity, changes in questioning, valuing of serendipitous information, and other variables. The results would indicate that field independent individuals report clearer more focused thinking, see themselves in an earlier problem stage, and report higher levels of change in perception of the problem. Holists value serendipity and report engagement in Kuhlthau's exploring stage. They are seen by intermediaries as exhibiting fewer changes in questioning behavior. A fifth section will appear in a later issue.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.728-735

Type

a

0.001302741 = product of:
  0.0071650753 = sum of:
    0.0047346503 = weight(_text_:a in 4714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047346503 = score(doc=4714,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4714, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4714)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 4714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=4714,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4714, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4714)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

For the purposes of this article, the indexing of information is interpreted as the pre-processing of information in order to enable its retrieval. The definition thus spans a dimension extending from classification-based approaches (pre-co-ordinate) to keyword searching (post-co-ordinate). In the first section we clarify our use of terminology, by briefly describing a framework for modelling IR systems in terms of sets of objects, relationships and functions. In the following 3 sections, we discuss the application of indexing functions to document collections of 3 specific types: (1) 'conventional' text databases; (2) hypertext databases; and (3) the World Wide Web, globally distributed across the Internet

Source

Journal of documentation. 54(1998) no.1, S.28-47

Type

a

0.0012307836 = product of:
  0.0067693098 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=1052,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1052,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Studies of document retrieval systems have suggested that the degree of consistency in the terms assigned to documents by indexers is positively associated with retrieval effectiveness. The study investigated the consistency of assignment of links in separate hypertext versions of the same full text database assuming that a measure of agreement may be related to the subsequent utility of the resulting hypertext document. Describes the calculations involved in measuring the degree of similarity between pairs of structured objetcs of a certain type (Those that may be represented in graph theoretic form). Initial results show little similarity between the sets of links identified by different people and this finding is comparable with those of studies of inter indexer consistency, where it has been found that there is generally only alow level of agreement between the sets of indexing terms assigned to a document of different indexers

Pages

S.67-80

Type

a

0.0012084637 = product of:
  0.00664655 = sum of:
    0.00492798 = weight(_text_:a in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00492798 = score(doc=1255,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16076508 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
    0.00171857 = weight(_text_:s in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00171857 = score(doc=1255,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.059458308 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

As digital libraries become a major source of information for many people, we need to know more about how people seek and retrieve information in digital environments. Quite commonly, users with a problem-at-hand and associated question-in-mind repeatedly search a literature for answers, and seek information in stages over extended periods from a variety of digital information resources. The process of repeatedly searching over time in relation to a specific, but possibly an evolving information problem (including changes or shifts in a variety of variables), is called the successive search phenomenon. The study outlined in this paper is currently investigating this new and little explored line of inquiry for information retrieval, Web searching, and digital libraries. The purpose of the research project is to investigate the nature, manifestations, and behavior of successive searching by users in digital environments, and to derive criteria for use in the design of information retrieval interfaces and systems supporting successive searching behavior. This study includes two related projects. The first project is based in the School of Library and Information Sciences at the University of North Texas and is funded by a National Science Foundation POWRE Grant <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/show?award=9753277>. The second project is based at the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield (UK) and is funded by a grant from the British Library <http://www.shef. ac.uk/~is/research/imrg/uncerty.html> Research and Innovation Center. The broad objectives of each project are to examine the nature and extent of successive search episodes in digital environments by real users over time. The specific aim of the current project is twofold: * To characterize progressive changes and shifts that occur in: user situational context; user information problem; uncertainty reduction; user cognitive styles; cognitive and affective states of the user, and consequently in their queries; and * To characterize related changes over time in the type and use of information resources and search strategies particularly related to given capabilities of IR systems, and IR search engines, and examine changes in users' relevance judgments and criteria, and characterize their differences. The study is an observational, longitudinal data collection in the U.S. and U.K. Three questionnaires are used to collect data: reference, client post search and searcher post search questionnaires. Each successive search episode with a search intermediary for textual materials on the DIALOG Information Service is audiotaped and search transaction logs are recorded. Quantitative analysis includes statistical analysis using Likert scale data from the questionnaires and log-linear analysis of sequential data. Qualitative methods include: content analysis, structuring taxonomies; and diagrams to describe shifts and transitions within and between each search episode. Outcomes of the study are the development of appropriate model(s) for IR interactions in successive search episodes and the derivation of a set of design criteria for interfaces and systems supporting successive searching.

Source

D-Lib magazine. 4(1998) no.4, xx S

Type

a

0.0011166352 = product of:
  0.006141493 = sum of:
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 6716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=6716,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 6716, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6716)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 6716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=6716,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 6716, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6716)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Describes the use of a variety of similarity coefficients in the measurement of the degree of similarity between objects that contain textual information, such as documents, paragraphs, index terms or queries. The work is intended as a preliminary to future investigation of the calculations involved in measuring the degree of similarity between structured objects that may be represented by graph theoretic forms. Descusses the role of similarity coefficients in text retrieval in terms of: document and query similarity; document and document similarity; cocitation analysis; term and term similarity; and the similarity between sets of judgements, such as relevance judgements. Describes several methods for expressing the formulae used to define similarity coefficients and compares their attributes. Concludes with details the characteristics of similarity coefficients; equivalence and monotonicity; consideration of negative matches; geometric analyses; and the meaning of correlation coefficients

Source

Perspectives in information management. 3(1993) no.2, S.128-149

Type

a

9.3052926E-4 = product of:
  0.005117911 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=3003,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3003, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3003)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3003, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3003)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The problem of measurement in information retrieval research is traced to its source in the first retrieval tests. The problem is seen as presenting a chronic dilemma for the field. This dilemma has taken 3 forms as the discipline has evloved: (1) the dilemma of measurement in the archetypal approach: stated relevance versus user relevance; (2) the dilemma of measurement in the probabilistic approach: realism versus formalism; and (3) the dilemma of measurement in the Information Retrieval-Expert System (IR-ES) approach: linear measures of relevance versus logarithmic measures of knowledge. It is argued that the dilemma of measurement has remained intractable even given the different assumptions of the different approaches for 3 connecte reasons - the nature of the subject matter of the field; the nature of relevance jidgement; and the nature of cognition and knowledge. Finally, it is concluded that the original vision of information retrieval research as a discipline founded on quantification proved restricting for its theoretical and methodological development and that increasing recognition of this is reflected in growing interest in qualitative methods in information retrieval research in relation to cognitive, behavioral, and affective aspects of the information retrieval interaction

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.23-36

Type

a

9.3052926E-4 = product of:
  0.005117911 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 1794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=1794,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1794, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1794)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=1794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1794)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of serendipity and approaches to its study particularly in relation to information studies. Design/methodology/approach - The origins of the term serendipity are described and its elaboration as an exploratory and explanatory concept in science and the social sciences are outlined. The distinction between serendipity and serendipity pattern is explained and theoretical and empirical studies of both serendipity and the serendipity patterns are explored. The relationship between information encountering is described. Empirical studies of serendipity using Citation Classics and other research approaches in information studies are described. Findings - The discrepancy between occurrences of serendipity in studies using Citation Classics and reported serendipity in philosophy of science, research anecdotes, information encountering and information seeking by inter-disciplinary researchers is highlighted. A comparison between a process model of serendipity and serendipity as an emergent behavioural characteristic are indicates directions for future research. Originality/value - The paper provides and original synthesis of the theoretical and empirical literature on serendipity with particular reference to work in information studies and an indication of the methodological difficulties involved in its study.

Source

Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.6, S.1015-1038

Type

a

6.7064626E-4 = product of:
  0.0036885543 = sum of:
    0.0019525366 = weight(_text_:a in 4713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019525366 = score(doc=4713,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4713, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4713)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=4713,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4713, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4713)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Journal of documentation. 53(1997) no.4, S.384-403

Type

a

4.4638177E-4 = product of:
  0.0049101994 = sum of:
    0.0049101994 = weight(_text_:s in 815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0049101994 = score(doc=815,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16988087 = fieldWeight in 815, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=815)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Footnote

Rez. in: Canadian library journal. 48(1991) S.434 (E. Frick): "The book is full of information about the development of concepts and systems in this most fascinating part of professional work"

Pages

X,138 S